SCOTT HARLAN BROWN AND THOMAS GORDON REED, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the circuit court's denial of the motion to suppress was incorrect due to an unclear record regarding probable cause for seizure.
Appellants were convicted of cannabis trafficking. The circuit court denied their motion to suppress evidence, finding probable cause based on attorne…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Seizure Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty of trafficking in cannabis. The sole question is whether the circuit court’s denial of appellants’ motion to suppress was correct.
It is difficult for us to understand the events that led to the seizure of the cannabis involved in this case. The circuit court based its denial of appellants’ motion to suppress upon a finding that the police had probable cause to seize the cannabis. In turn, that finding was based upon proffers of what the witnesses would testify to made by both lawyers. The death of the lawyer who represented appellants in the circuit court, before any brief was filed here, makes the situation more complex.
Since the record leaves much doubt as to what really occurred, the order denying the motion to suppress is hereby set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to have a further hearing at which time testimony can be taken toward developing whether the police had probable cause to make the seizure in question. See State v. Kovach, 350 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 459 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…in. The appellants, pursuant to no contest pleas, were adjudged guilty and sentenced. In a previous appeal this court did not disturb the convictions and sentences but merely directed that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on a motion to suppress. 409 So. 2d 255 (1982). For that reason I do not believe that Rule 3.191(g), requiring a new trial to be conducted within 90 days of mandate, applies to this case.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Kovach, 350 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)